In this application under section 397, the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 7.7.88 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2(H) of 1988. 2. The petitioner herein filed an application under section 125 Cr. P. C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong which was registered as Case No. C.R. 19S(S) of 1988. Petitioner prayed for maintenance for herself as she is the legal married wife of the opp. party and also for her 2 minor daughters. She further prayed by filing a separate application, supported by an affidavit for a direction for interim maintenance pending final disposal of the petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 1.3.88 passed in the aforesaid case awarded Rs. 400/- per month as interim maintenance. The opp. party herein approached the learned Sessions Judge against the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and by the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of interim maintenance on the ground that there is no provision under section 125 Cr. Pt C. to grant interim maintenance. Hence, the present petition, 3. I have heard Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. As hone (appears for the opp. party, I have perused the contention raised before the learned Sessions Judge and after considering these I am of the firm opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Sen has drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Savitri vs. Govinda Singh Rawat. AIR 1986 SC 984 = 1986 Cri. L. J. 41 and has urged that the power to grant interim maintenance allowance pending final disposal of the petition is implied in section 125 Cr. P. C. 5. In Smt. Savitri (supra) the Apex Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. contained in Chapter IX and also Family Courts Act, 1984 held that in absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under section 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. Their Lordships also held that Magistrate may, however, insist upon an affidavit being filed by or on behalf of the applicant concerned stating the grounds in support of the claim for interim maintenance to satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case for making such an order. It was also held that such an order may also be made in an appropriate case exparte pending service of notice of the application subject to any modification or even an order of cancellation that may be passed after the respondent is heard. According to their Lordships if the allegations in the application or the affidavit are not true, it is always open to the person against whom such an order is made to show that the order is unsustainable. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex court, it is clear that the present petitioner is entitled interim maintenance pending disposal of her petition. Hence the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and is liable to be set aside which I hereby do. 7. As none has appeared for the opp. party herein, I may also take into consideration the contentions raised before the learned Sessions Judge. The first contention was that in passing the order there was no application of judicial mind by the trial Court. I have perused the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and I am of the opinion that there is no force as learned Chief Judicial Magistrate specifically taken into consideration the affidavit filed by the present petitioner. Another contention before the learned Sessions Judge on behalf of the opp. party was that if the interim maintenance order is passed, it will encourage the petitioner for her illicit connection with some persons. I am of the opinion that this question has to be decided at the time of final disposal of the petition and on the top of that by the petition in question, the petitioner has prayed maintena­nce not only for herself, but also for her two minor daughters. Next question raised before the learned Sessions Judge was that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the employer to deduct the amount from the salary of the opp. party is bad in law as it should be realised in the manner prescribed by sub-section (3) of section 125 Cr. Next question raised before the learned Sessions Judge was that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directing the employer to deduct the amount from the salary of the opp. party is bad in law as it should be realised in the manner prescribed by sub-section (3) of section 125 Cr. P.C. In other words it was submitted that such an order can be passed in case of failure to pay the maintenance allow­ance by the husband. It is true that the above sub-section (3; of section 125 Cr. P.C. was not complied with. But on that technical ground, I refused to invoke the revisional power of this Court which is discretionary. It may be appropriate to mention that Courts are respected today for administering justice on merits and not on technical grounds. If the order is set aside, on the above ground, the lady with her two daughters will be in distress. 8. From what has been stated above, the impugned order is set aside. It is however made clear that the opp. party may approach the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for modification, verification, alteration or cancellation of the order and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider the merit of such prayer and shall pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties, 9. I find from the impugned order that the learned Sessions Judge appointed Mr. S. R. Sen for rendering legal service to the present petitioner subject to the formal approval of the District Legal Aid Committee. In my opinion appointment of learned counsel would help the petitioner, who is in need of legal aid. In such a case it is right and proper to render legal aid which is a Constitutional right but no formal approval of the District Legal Committee is necessary. I direct that the District Legal Aid Committee shall pay the fees to the learned counsel in accordance with rules. A copy of this order may be sent to the Secretary, State Legal Aid Board. In the result, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute.